Origins of Armory

A much-disputed topic, to be sure. I hereby summarize the discussion of
the origins of armory in Pastoureau's Traité d'Héraldique
(Paris, 1993).

The Causes

Form the 14th to the 20th c., many hypotheses have been mad eabout the
origin of armory in the Western World. Three leading theories are now
all abandoned: a direct origin in classical antiquity, or in runes and
family emblems of German-Scandinavian populations, or in Muslim countries
via the Crusades. He states that it is now accepted that the emergence
of armory is due to the evolution of military equipment from the late 11th
to the mid-12th c, with fighters unrecognizable under their
helmets (there is a nice illustration from the 11th century Bayeux tapestry
showing
William lifting his helmet so as to be recognized by his
troops in battle). This led fighters to paint emblems on their
shields. The question is then to establish a proper
chronology of this emergence and of the transformation of these
emblems into armory, i.e., constant use of one design by the
same person and application of strict rules in the design itself.
(This last point the most puzzling, and which sets apart
European armory from most other systems).

The Formation

Pastoureau summarizes Galbreath's opinions (which he thinks
have been confirmed over time). Armory resulted from the
combination of several pre-existing elements into one system.
The elements pertain to insigns, banners, seals and shields.
Insigns have contributed certain figures and the collective
character of some arms. Banners brought colors as well as
some geometric elements (ordinaries, partitions, semys) and
the link of arms to fiefs. From seals come a number of
family emblems already in use by some families in Germany,
Flanders and Italy, canting arms, and the hereditary aspect.
Shields contributed the shape of the design, furs, and some
ordinaries (border, pale, chief).

This combination did not take place uniformly over time
and space. It does seem that banners played a predominant
role, and textiles in general, in shaping the way colors
were used, as well as yielding a number of terms (more than
half of the heraldic terms common in the Middle Ages come
from the vocabulary of textiles).

The three main sources of emblems are thus the individual's
own distinctive marks, used in battle for recognition, the
family's emblems, probably in use for some time, and the
fief's rallying banner, which served as a flag for vassals
in combat. Elements from these three sources combined to
form armory, which tries to play all three roles at the
same time: identify individuals, be transmissible within
a family, and represent ownership or claims to fiefs.
In order to fulfill these contradictory goals, heraldry
has developed mechanisms such as differencing (which
allows to reconcile individual marks with hereditary
emblems) and marshalling (which allows to express
property rights as well as lineage).

The Date

The Bayeux tapestry provides a terminus a quo:
no heraldry there. Combattants have designs on their shields,
but the same design is seen on different individuals' shields
(even on opposite sides of the battle) and the same individual
uses different designs at different times.
The usual first example is the Le Mans enamel
from the tomb of Geffrey Plantagenet. The enamel is now dated
to 1160-65; the chronicle of Jean Rapicault which narrates
the gift of the shield in 1127 is itself also from a later
date, 1170-75. Furthermore, the only extant seal of Jeffrey
(on a 1149 document) shows no arms. So there is no contemporary
evidence for the 1127 "birthdate" of heraldry.

A recension of all seals dating from before 1160 and displaying
unmistakable heraldic elements, about 20 in all, show that
the emblems appear on the banner before they do on the shield,
they appear all across Western Europe in a short period of time
(1120-1150) and until 1140 geometric patterns dominate floral
or animal motifs. The oldest exactly dated seal with a coat of
arms is a seal of Raoul of Vermandois from 1146; an earlier seal,
dated ca. 1135, shows the same arms on a banner.

Pastoureau thus distinguishes 2 phases: the transformation of
decorative motifs painted on shields into permanent and individual
emblems (1100-1140) and the transformation of the latter into
hereditary emblems subjected to precise rules (1140-80).

He suggests a number of alternative sources: illuminated manuscripts,
sculptures, everyday objects (textiles, eating instruments) though
they all suffer from a problem of dating. Texts may yield
information. Finally, coins, especially bracteates (one-sided thin
silver coins from Germany) present a promising avenue of research:
pre-1160 coins show some fluctuation in shield designs, but remarkable
stability of banners for the owners of a given fief.

It seems clear to him that, throughout the 12th c., individuals
used motifs on their shields primarily based on taste, but
banners presented a constant emblem for rallying, linked not
to the individual but to the fief. Seals and miniatures
show us the banners of some major fiefs around 1150, and they
are all geometric and bi-color: Luxemburg (barry), Vermandois
(chequy), Savoy (cross), Burgundy (bendy), Aragon and
Provence (pallets), Flanders (girony), Hainaut (chevronny).